Payne v. White

Summary

The Southern District of Illinois dismissed Kraig Payne’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. The court held that the allegations concerning confiscation of a phonebook did not support a constitutional claim, that the defendants other than White were not alleged to have personal involvement, and that the Fourth Amendment does not protect prisoners from random cell searches. The court also warned Payne that future frivolous filings or filings failing to disclose his strikes and this order could result in a filing restriction.

Holdings

1. A § 1983 complaint does not state a claim against defendants merely by naming them in the caption or referring to them collectively; it must allege each defendant's personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation.
2. A prisoner cannot maintain a § 1983 damages action for the loss or intentional deprivation of personal property when the state provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy.
3. A prisoner has no Fourth Amendment protection against random searches of the prisoner's cell.
4. Threadbare references to the Fifth Amendment and failure to protect, without a factual connection to the alleged events, do not state a claim sufficient to proceed under § 1915A.
5. A court may deny further leave to amend when the plaintiff has already had multiple opportunities to cure pleading deficiencies and another amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint stated a § 1983 claim against defendants who were named collectively but whose personal involvement was not specifically alleged.
2. Whether the alleged loss or intentional deprivation of Payne's phonebook was actionable under § 1983 when an adequate state postdeprivation remedy was available.
3. Whether a random search of a prisoner's cell violated the Fourth Amendment.
4. Whether Payne's conclusory references to the Fifth Amendment and failure to protect stated viable constitutional claims.
5. Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate after Payne had already received an opportunity to amend.

Disposition

dismissed